Tommy wrote:I risk opening a colossal can of worms, and for that people have my apologies, but I'm interested, given that the polls are now ishowing a significant swing towards public perception that voting to leave the EU was a bad move, I'm interested to see whether there are any people who supported Brexit who now have second thoughts?

I hasten to add that this isn't said with any condescending overtones. I'm not looking to trap people and say "hahaha! We were right! haaaaaa!" That's just immature, and boring. I'm more interested in a nuanced discussion. I think anyone prepared to admit their mind has changed is far more worthy of my (and many others') respect than religious fanatics who are unmoved by anything or anyone because they fear they'll look "weak" if they change their mind.

Likewise, there may be many legitimate reasons for having second thoughts; realisations that things that were promised were lies, or maybe that the idea of Brexit is still appealing but is being so terribly run by those in charge?

Nearly a year into the two year Article 50 process, and I'm wondering how people feel that the first 12 months have progressed. And, indeed, what their confidence in the success of the next 12 months?

Likewise, to anyone who followed the remain case, and are now supportive of leaving the EU.

I voted out because I couldn't bring my self to be a fraud or a coward, I'd spent the previous 23 years since the Maastricht Treaty allowed the EU the ability to oversee our own court and Government decisions/intentions and sieving at every report. I do believe the official remain campaign made the wrong case. To explain that all the bending to the EU was entirely the craven support of our own Government's past and present, would be to admit their own responsibility for our voting to get out. Even though Cameron thought it would never happen. At least that's as I understand it. I'm told that all the other EU governments, if they don't like an EU ruling, they just ignore it. I've no evidence of this, so couldn't say. I remain a Brexiteer but if its for the best to stay in. Then I'm all for a second referendum. If we are heading to jump off a cliff I fail to understand what the hell everyone who says we can't have another referendum propose to do about it? I'm still not sure who is telling the truth and who is complete liar. I further believe that any harm done to our economy is because of bloody mindedness across the Channel. Barnier is having a good time sticking it to us. Then again, I really don't know what is really going on in negotiations. I've read The New European and found it to be a downright juvenile ant-British, sneering sheet of toilet paper.

Tommy wrote: or maybe that the idea of Brexit is still appealing but is being so terribly run by those in charge?

That probably sums up the way a lot of people are thinking. I voted to leave and still believe it will turn out alright in the end (it was always going to be rough to start with). However, if I knew that those who would end up in charge would be so inept to sort it, I may of voted the other way (pun not intended). Problem also is, I don't believe for a minute that anyone else in parliament would be able to do a better job.

I was a leaver and nothing that has happened since has changed my views on why I wanted to leave but I cannot stand all of this public infighting from the Tories.

I actually think that the negotiations have gone well up to this point, the divorce bill seems like an absolute steal compared to what I thought it was going to be.

I also can't quite get my head around this pre-conceived notion that the EU have excellent negotiators and ours are all pony. Where does this idea come from? Forget May and Davis and Barnier, they are all politicians and figure heads, I am sure that there are others in the room or more importantly meeting in the siderooms where the real work is going on. At least I hope so.

I think the next phase is going to be a lot harder for the EU to manage. The first phase was all about money going directly into the EU coffers, now with trade there are going to be a whole lot more fingers in the pie from outside the EU bubble who are going to be making sure they get heard. The other smaller EU members are going to be a lot more involved now as well with their own individual concerns about losing their beneficial trading conditions with the UK.

This to me is exactly what is wrong with the EU, it tries to be a one size fits all which is a great aspirational ideal but in reality it is a bunch of rich countries and a bigger bunch of poor countries who all have their own mouths to feed and different ways of doing it.

Voted to stay in & would vote the same now.Most people I know voted to leave, primarily down to controling immigration & job protection.A large number of them now say they'd vote to remain if they had the chance....not because their views have changed, but because they say they had too little information from both sides as to what would be involved ( many of them thought we'd default to joining the EFTA or EEA ) and they don't trust those from the UK currently conducting the negotiations ( most - if not all - of whom are hard-line anti-EU ) to get the best deal for the UK.

Brevet Cable wrote:Voted to stay in & would vote the same now.Most people I know voted to leave, primarily down to controling immigration & job protection.A large number of them now say they'd vote to remain if they had the chance....not because their views have changed, but because they say they had too little information from both sides as to what would be involved ( many of them thought we'd default to joining the EFTA or EEA ) and they don't trust those from the UK currently conducting the negotiations ( most - if not all - of whom are hard-line anti-EU ) to get the best deal for the UK.

Not why I voted to leave, the EU is seeking to become a sprawling super state, I don't know how much is the case regarding unelected officials but I should imagine our voice in Europe will become ever less significant. While we were taking part in the passing of EU laws I understand the British Government have attempted to veto a number of EU rules which were implemented without a hint of concern for the British objections. But a lot of people want to remain because they quite look forward to the end of UK sovereignty, always dressed up as economic concern of course. The only reason Brexit will be difficult is because the EU choose to make it so. You have to ask, just why are they so keen to force us to reverse our position?

You'll find that a lot of those who voted to stay share the same concerns regarding the expansion of the EU - Serbia & Montenegro next on the list according to Radio 4 the other day - and the fiddling of figures to allow them to meet the criteria for joining both the EU & the Euro, which is what's led to many of the problems in recent years.

The Brexit negotiations are being complicated to various degrees by both sides, which was exacerbated by the timeframe & the fact that HMG didn't exactly rush to get things started.A lot of the problem could also be seen as being down to some of the unrealistic demands the UK are making, some of which they've become fixated on which have led to the negotiations stalling needlessly.There's no way the EU will allow the open border between Eire & NI/mainland UK to continue post-Brexit, given that the current unrestricted access was a special case in the first place & it's extremely unlikely ( impossible, I'd say ) that they'll agree to the trading conditions HMG are demanding, which would give the UK the same - or better - conditions than the EFTA & EEA Members have.

I'm a regular listener to 'Question Time' & 'Any Questions'....whenever there's a Brexit question ( which there still is every week ) if you ignore the obligatory rabid zealots who merely shout the "Leave means leave" mantra, a large number of those in the audiences who say they voted to leave cite immigration and/or border controls as one of their main reasons for doing so.Similarly, both pre- and post-referendum, the surveys & interviews conducted by the media here in Wales had pro-Brexit voters' main reasons for doing so being immigration, border control & the fallacious '£350 Million for the NHS' claim.

I was a remainer and if I had the choice I would still be very much be a remainer. I think leaving the EU was daft. BUT and it is a very big but what pees me off much more than leaving is we appear to be heading for a route that is much worse than leaving. That is leaving while trying to retain as many of the advantages (and possibly disadvantages). I may hate you leavers but not half as much as I despise the soft Brexiters. What the heck is the point of looking for a solution that allows us to leave the club, while still paying into it. If we are going lets go or if there is any way of pleasing me, stay but don't try to do both.

The thing is, though, that - if Wales is anything to go by - a lot of those who voted Leave are still complaining that the options weren't explained properly by either side ( despite the only 2 options on the form being 'Leave' or 'Remain' ) and that they thought that even if the vote was to Leave we'd still effectively stay in by defaulting to EEA/EFTA membership.Ironically, when those campaigning to stay pointed out the likelihood of a hard Brexit and what that would entail, they were ridiculed by the 'Leave' campaigners with the usual accusations of "Project Fear".

At the moment, though, the UK's negotiators ( or at least the Three Stooges who act as their mouthpiece ) are fixated on trying to retain the trade deals & open border trading policy but without having to pay into the EU.....and you just know that there's less chance of that happening than there is of Satan opening an ice-skating rink in Hell.

Finningley Boy wrote: While we were taking part in the passing of EU laws I understand the British Government have attempted to veto a number of EU rules which were implemented without a hint of concern for the British objections.

Just wondering; which laws/rules? Were we successful in vetoing them?

Finningley Boy wrote:But a lot of people want to remain because they quite look forward to the end of UK sovereignty

So are you saying that I, or any other person in this thread who voted to remain looks forward to the end of sovereignty?

Finningley Boy wrote:The only reason Brexit will be difficult is because the EU choose to make it so.

Finningley Boy wrote:While we were taking part in the passing of EU laws I understand the British Government have attempted to veto a number of EU rules which were implemented without a hint of concern for the British objections. But a lot of people want to remain because they quite look forward to the end of UK sovereignty, always dressed up as economic concern of course. The only reason Brexit will be difficult is because the EU choose to make it so. You have to ask, just why are they so keen to force us to reverse our position?

It's called democracy, if you vote against the majority that generally means you end up on the losing side - like the Brexit referendum. There are circumstances where the UK can veto, but they generally need two more large countries to support them.

Our contributions make up around 17% of the EU budget, so of course they don't want us to leave. Let's hope our leaving doesn't mean the end of the EU, because if the EU collapses I can guarantee our economy will be dragged down with it, whether we're in or out.

Finningley Boy wrote:While we were taking part in the passing of EU laws I understand the British Government have attempted to veto a number of EU rules which were implemented without a hint of concern for the British objections. But a lot of people want to remain because they quite look forward to the end of UK sovereignty, always dressed up as economic concern of course. The only reason Brexit will be difficult is because the EU choose to make it so. You have to ask, just why are they so keen to force us to reverse our position?

It's called democracy, if you vote against the majority that generally means you end up on the losing side - like the Brexit referendum. There are circumstances where the UK can veto, but they generally need two more large countries to support them.

Our contributions make up around 17% of the EU budget, so of course they don't want us to leave. Let's hope our leaving doesn't mean the end of the EU, because if the EU collapses I can guarantee our economy will be dragged down with it, whether we're in or out.

You're quite correct about the impact and outcome of voting of course. However, one argument for hanging in there is the that we're able to influence EU law through the power of our vote. I'd say we don't in practice. We will of course have to accept further EU regulations being generated, whether as a country there is popular approval. We don't necessarily know each time because there isn't a corresponding national referendum on every EU law passed, either here or elsewhere. The logic of the immigration control is simply that the EU has demonstrated in many cases to have o border controls. Far too many young 'men' as opposed to Women and Children will fight to the death at Calais to get to the UK. To simply have no sanction on this is bad news long term. However, other EU countries in the East are determined to make a difference this appears to annoy the EU. The EU is now one huge Global Socialist State project and devil mind you if you try to leave. Those who have faith, at the top, see their personal view of a neutralised continent which has no ability to wage war between the former nations and by inviting all without through largess, expect to spread the good will. Its happening way to quickly and likely to cause internal bitter discontent because the EU is now trying to flex its legal and economic muscle, not to mention trying to ostracise, those who dissent from within. But anyway... Economic cooperation should not depend upon sovereign surrender in any way shape or form to a greater power, certainly not as deep and broad as it has become and certainly not as far as it is threatening to go.

....the EU has demonstrated in many cases to have o border controls. Far too many young 'men' as opposed to Women and Children will fight to the death at Calais to get to the UK.

Which will continue to be the case even when we leave the EU.

We could impose border controls now if we wanted, as we're not a Schengen signatory, just as we could kick EU citizens out if they don't meet the residency criteria ( and as the majority of the economic migrants aren't EU citizens we have even more powers to kick them out )The fact that the current and previous Governments have all failed to do so says more about them than it does the laws.

Just to clarify a coupe of the points responded to, there are I'm sure many remainers who do not see a threat to national sovereignty. I think its not perhaps necessarily certain that any further government autonomy will be subordinated by the EU, but it is certainly so that a good many in the EU not least of all Jean Claud Junker, who dream of a single central government in Brussels for all the member states, they then become like shires, counties. When a single European Defence structure is in place and an over arching European Police 'Service' there'll be no turning back. As for the £350 million nonsense, and I promise I do not speak with hindsight, but I was dismayed that anyone who'd been to a good school and earned millions themselves would think this could be placed before the electorate with the expectation of it being accepted at face value any more than Corbyn's promise of a Defence Review under his administration that would arrive at a decision to retain Trident, however, I did watch the BBC morning TV sofa chat in the lead up to the vote. They had a number cruncher on who'd determined just what we got back from the £350 million (admitting it existed for a start!). The bean counted answer was that we gained so much by way of medical and scientific research and other areas where we benefited. The shortfall was £161 million per week, this the chap couldn't account for, so it was money probably going to assist other EU states, other projects or just being saved up for a rainy day for one and all. However, presuming the ill-advised promise to spend it all on the NHS did come to be, then according to those who'd conducted the analysis, to dismissive grins across the studio, this was an insignificant amount. It seemed to me that they were so unimpressed that they would consider it an insult to the NHS to be offered it! Bet you if they chose to cut the NHS by as much we'd know all about it. By the way, 53 x 161,000,000 comes to 8,553,000,000 according to my calculations. At least the BBC were stepping back from any indication of a position on either Brexit, the Tories or UKIP